DIWAN SINGH Vs. M PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Diwan Singh, the present revisionist haschallenged the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14(l)(e),read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called theAct). The order of eviction has been assailed inter alia on the ground thatrespondent/petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller had no locus standito file eviction petition because they were neither owner of the property inquestion nor their need bona fide. In the absence of bona fide need the eviction order could not have been passed.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the preseat petitioner was inducted as atenant with regard to one room in property No. 2/49 Harijan Basti, SaraiRohilla, Rohtak Road, Delhi, by one Smt. Naraini Devi, on a monthly rentof Rs. 30.00 inclusive of electricity and water charges, 0m Parkash, repondentNo. 1 alleged himself to be the husband and respondents 2 and 3 daughtersof the said Naraini Devi. They, therefore claimed themselves as landlord/owner of the property and, therefore, claimed petition on the ground ofbona fide requirements. This petition was contested by the petitioner/tenanton the ground that the said 0m Prakash had been taking contradictory standbefore various Courts regarding Smt. Naraini Devi's existence. In a suitbearing No. 406/74, titled as Thakar Kanchan Singh v. Shri 0m Prakash andOrs. decided by Shri V.K. Jain, Sub Judge, 0m Prakash took the plea thatSmt. Naraini Devi was still alive. Whereas in a subsequent suit he allegedthat Smt. Naraini Devi was presumed not to be dead. This statement wasmade by him on 15.1.80. This shows he was not aware about Smt. NarainiDevi. This further proves that he was not her husband, and therefore, had noauthority to file the eviction petition. However the Court below after recording the evidence passed the eviction order holding that 0m Prakash, SarojRani and Usha Rani were the legal representatives of late Naraini Devi beingher husband and daughters respectively. Therefore, being legal heir steppedinto the shoes of the owner. They had the right to institute the evictionpetition. They had the locus standi. It was also held that since 0m Prakashwas living in one room, the said accommodation was not sufficient for him.Both his married daughters visit him, therefore, he required additionalaccommodation and hence allowed the petition. It is against this order ofeviction that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. His challenge isprimarily on the ground that there is no proof placed on record that Smt.Naraini Devi is dead or that 0m Prakash is her husband and Saroj and Ushaher daughters. Nor he had the authority to file the eviction petition. Afterrecording evidence, eviction order was passed wherein it has been field that0m Prakash, Saroj Rani and Usha Rani were the husband and daughtersrespectively of late Naraini Devi. They, therefore, being the legal heirs of theowner of the property, had the right to institute the eviction petition andhence had the locus standi. It was also held that since 0m Prakash wasliving in one room, it was not sufficient accommodation for him, his both themarried daughters visit him, therefore, he required additional accommodation.Hence allowed the petition. It is against this order that the present petitionhas been filed challenging the order on the ground that there is no documentary evidence placed on record to prove that Naraini Devi is dead or that0m Parkash was her husband and Saroj and Usha their daughters, 0mPrakash and others could not be the owner of the property.

(3.) Mi. K..R. Chawla, Counsel for the petitioner, urged that respondents had no locus standi to file this eviction petition. In the petitionit was not mentioned that they became owner by inheritance. In theabsence of any pleading, on amount of evidence adduced by themcould be looked into. He drew my attention to paras 3,8 and 18(a)of the petition, where the petitioners namely 0m Prakash,SarojandUshahad simply alleged themselves to be the owner/landlord without specifying asto how they became so. Whereas admitted facts are that 0m Prakash hadbeen receiving the rent till 1979 in the name and on behalf of Smt. NarainiDevi. If Smt. Naraini Devi was dead, then why 0m Prakash kept on receiving the rent in her name? No documentary evidence was placed on record toprove that Smt. Naraini Devi died in June, 1971. 0m Prakash. appearing asAW-I, admitted that Smt. Naraini Devi died in Hindu Rao Hospital, but didnot produce any death certificate. Having failed to produce it cannot bepresumed that Naraini Devi, the real owner is dead. Therefore, the questionof succession does not arise. As regard Ex, AW-I/I, the judgment deliveredby Shri V.K. Jain, Sub Judge, Delhi, that was not inter se the parties, andtherefore, not relevant for the determination of the facts of this case. In thecase before Mr. Jain no documentary evidence was produced to establish thatSmt. Naraini Devi died. Rather AW-I/I shows that one Nirmala Devi diedin the Hindu Rao Hospital. Hence Ex. AW-I/I does not prove that NarainiDevi died in hospital on 20.6.71-. In the absence of any proof of NarainiDevi's death the respondents cannot claim themselves to be the owner of theproperty in question. So far as the witnesses produced by the landlord areconcerned they are not reliable. Guru Dutt, AW-4, is alleged to be the brotherof Smt. Naraini Devi. He could not describe about the property in question, norcould tell when Smt. Naraini Devi died. Had he been brother he would haveknown about this property as well as about the death of Smt. Naraini Devi 7The factumof Guru Dutt being the brother of Smt. Naraini Devi is doubtful,therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The evidence of AW-4,Guru Dutt, is also evasive. Even otherwise 0m Prakash himself in his crossexamination admitted that he had been receiving the rent in the name ofNaraini Devi. If Naraini Devi was his wife and died in 1971 then whatprevented 0m Prakash from receiving the rent in his own name after June,1971. The act shows that respondents were not related to Naraini Devi butare taking advantage of her absence.